*chuckles*
Ithy, in here we talk about movies as far back as the late 20's early 30's. By comparison, the 90's is like just yesterday. I would highly encourage you to lurk around this thread, though. There are a TON of great movies that are discussed in here (plus some really bad ones... which are also fun to dissect. )

In the US, The Fifth Element is rated PG-13 for "intense sci-fi violence, some sexuality and brief nudity". I'm guessing the nudity is referring to when the female lead first appears?

...as far back as the 90s...

That was just "yesterday" for me. The 90s gave us some great movies you know, (a favorite of mine is The Sixth Sense which is great, except it loses a lot if you know how it ends prior to seeing it). I've never seen The Fifth Element, but I must confess I just don't have interest in it. The DVD cover seems "attractive" but I see the previews, and nothing about it calls to me.

Brief nudity? I remember you see the lead female from a great distance but there's less detail than with a Barbie doll.

Ithilwen, we refer to movies as old or new depending on how recent they are in film history, not relative to the viewer's age. But that's okay. Here's an example of a truly old movie.

METROPOLIS

Fritz Lang's The Complete Metropolis (1927). I watched it earlier this month. A great sci-fi/drama/romance movie. More coherent and interesting than previous versions.
PROS: Fantastic cinematography and art direction, quality premise, good thought-provoking story and stunt work, quality acting - most of it, highly-advanced visual effects and special effects, beefy soundtrack. Good to have restored material.
CONS: Some parts are rather dull, acting sometimes goes beyond melodramatic into deplorably silly, restored material is of a very poor quality. Protagonist is not very interesting.
Overall, an excellent movie that is well ahead of it's time. Highly recommended for older teens and adults - contains moderate violence, adult themes and disturbing imagery.
8/10

Movie trailer: (probably a PG)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92VYq91zIw

...well, I think it would qualify as brief nudity. It doesn't matter if you see details or not, it's still there.

Yes, true. It's there but what I'm saying is that I don't believe it's of consequence (a maximum of a few seconds with less than Barbie doll attention to detail) and that there's no reason to run for the hills.

It's not at the beginning, but at the end where the nudity takes place. The Fifth Element is definitely not your stereo-typical sci-fi flick. But Bruce Willis, Milla Jojovich (Resident Evil, the new Three Musketeers), Gary Oldman, and Ian Holm do make an interesting cast. I would equate Fifth Element to be in the same genre as StarDust. It doesn't fit in any particular genre and has elements of all types in it. And yes, Chris Tucker gets annoying with his perpetual high pitch voice and incessant mouth.

Haha! I much prefer Stardust but it does straddle a variety of genres (not all successfully). Say what you like about Stardust, it was consistent in that respect.

It was certainly much more consistent than Fifth Element. I related the two because both are kind of just 'out-there'. I also prefer Stardust over Fifth Element. In a way, the Princess Bride would also fit in this category of very different movies that pretty much form their own genre because they don't fit in any other. I would stay Stardust is the best overall movie of the three in terms of acting, consistent plot, and stuff, but Princess Bride has such great quotes that have stood the test of time. Fifth Element is one of those movies where you just don't really know what to make of it because it is all over the place. But it's a fun movie nonetheless.

"Now for something completely different...."

Just watched Wolfen (1981) on youtube and I must say, it's a pretty good little horror/suspense film. In many ways it's more of a suspense/thriller film in the fact that most of the movie centers around trying to figure out what is causing all the deaths in NY rather than showing the culprits and their gory deeds.

The acting was decent by all and the cinematography is impressive, especially the "wolf vision" effects (which directly influenced the "Predator vision" effects 6 years later in Predator (1987) ). The movie was made in the very earliest part of the 80's, so the overall feel has that gritty edge leftover from the 70's.

The plot is handled well, though there are some aspects that could have been explained better

Spoiler

like are the wolves spirit beings or are they the Native Americans transformed? The film hints at both possibilities, but never states which one is actually what is going on.

Along with the cinematography and locations around NY, the score adds GREATLY to eerie mood of the film. James Horner did an excellent job at giving the right balance of creepy atmosphere, full-out horror and surprisingly melancholy music. In many ways Wolfen is like the pre-runner of Horner's Aliens (1986), it even includes the little horn motif for action scenes later heard in the James Cameron film.

Overall, this was a surprisingly engaging and enjoyable film. It's more of a mystery movie than a horror film, though it does dive into horror at the end, so be forewarned if you expect this to be a suburban The Howling. I would recommend it to the older members who like these sorts of films (which means Warrior and Shadow), it's definitely NOT a film for younger viewers. If you go into this one not expecting this to be a werewolf film, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

Rated: R (strong language, some gore, brief nudity, frightening images)

P.S, this is also the ONLY film that features Evul Wolves that I found to be genuinely scary.

Werewolves never really interested me all that much, truth be told. I saw little bits and pieces of Wolfen waaaaay back in the 80's on HBO (which we weren't supposed to get but did due to some fluke with the cable receiver )...I don't recall much of it. I did enjoy An American Werewolf in London a bit more, although at times the humor aspect seems a bit out of place in the film, or perhaps the horror parts feel out of place in a film filled with dark humor. And of course they haven't made a decent vampire flick since The Lost Boys and so really all one is left with are Zombie movies. Because Frankenstein isn't a horror movie thing. He's just a goofball with a flat head who wanders around and grunts.

If I see Wolfen on youtube though I'll give it a go

I was finally able to see "Super 8" and wow! that was a really epic movie! more explosions than LOTR! the story itself was simple, but that was fine because it left more time for action and drama, both of which are awesome in movies
the production was well done and the visual effects were, from my standpoint, flawless the monster was quite creepy, exactly as I'd imagined it to be and the acting! wow! the kids were awesome, playing their roles realistically and perfectly Joel Courtney, who played the main character, Joe, was fantastic! and this was the first movie I'd seen Ellie Fanning in - wow! she's an amazing actress!
all in all, I thought the movie was quite epic and well done and I want to see it again

I watched Top Gun (or part of it, since the DVD wasn't working, and my Dad skipped nearly every part that had a girl in it. xD) the other day - like I expected, I wasn't impressed. An 80's movie (I'm NOT a fan of the 80's. ), with a reccomendation from a man who I don't have much respect for - spells trouble. And a PG rating? HONESTLY. With that language? It would have been a strong PG-13.
Oh well. I'll never watch that again. Even if I liked some of the characters a tiny bit.
Oh, and I watched the Gwyneth Paltrow Emma the other day. It's one of my friends favorite movie, and we had a sleepover and watched it. It was quite the day (which featured getting pulled over by four police cars. xDD).
But I was NOT impressed. At all. I've watched the new one, and I love it very much - it's so true to the book, all the characters are nearly perfect. But this one?! Let's count the things I like.
I liked Mr. Knightley's character, but it wasn't very much like the book. He was a bit too goodnatured, even though it was cute.
Harriet was awful. Too nice and sensible. Mr. Woodhouse was a jolly old man, not a fretful, ill man who didn't understand most of what was going on. Mrs. Bates was waaay too old, even if that was funny. Mrs. Elton was too ugly. The list goes on and on. I'm not interested in seeing it again. None of the relationships had any depth (especially all concerning Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill).
Watch the new one. Michael Gambon, Johnny Lee Miller, Romola Garai. What can go wrong? If you like true characters, and a movie that is completely close to the book (and the most adorable, wonderful dance scene ever), watch it.
Oh - would it be alright if I started a Jane Austen thread, to talk about all the books and movies? I hate to take over the Books and Movies Thread, separately.

more explosions than LOTR!

You know....there was really only that one explosion in LOTR, where that half orc thing/man/guy ran up with the torch and blew up the wall at Helm's Deep. Or did I miss some?

I watched Top Gun (or part of it, since the DVD wasn't working, and my Dad skipped nearly every part that had a girl in it. xD) the other day - like I expected, I wasn't impressed. An 80's movie (I'm NOT a fan of the 80's. ), with a reccomendation from a man who I don't have much respect for - spells trouble. And a PG rating? HONESTLY. With that language? It would have been a strong PG-13.

I have mixed feelings on Top Gun. On the one hand it has F-14 Tomcats in it, so plus 5 points. It has Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis in a goofy romance thing, so subtract 10 points. It has Michael Ironside in it so add 5 more points, but then it also has that idiotic beach volleyball scene, subtract 30. It has James Tolkan in it ("Your ego is writing checks that your body can't cash!") so add 10 points, but then it has the part that makes my head hurt when Maverick chickens out and acts like a goofball and quits school), so subtract 10 more points. It does have a great soundtrack with lots of Kenny Loggins music, so add 5 pts. Add 5 more points because I think Tom Skerritt is a great actor. Minus 10 for all 100 scenes of Maverick riding his motorcycle searching for himself and minus another 5 for making me hate the Righteous Brothers "You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling". So let's see....*types some numbers into his calculator*

*beep beep...beep...plus...equals...times 5...beep beep...Tom Cruise...ick...beep beep....add 5....minus 10...beep beep...*

Ok, I rank it as -35. See how that works?

Also, I loved the 80's. It was a great time to live, and there were lots of great movies during that time

I haven't seen any of them, I'm afraid. I'm fairly sure I haven't seen a single good movie that was made in the 80's - maybe there were some Disney one's?
And I like around 3 songs (by Journey, and U2) from then. So you can't blame me for disliking them.

Ok, youngin' ...what 80's movies have you seen that you don't like? Then we can start to figure out an 80's movies gameplan. Also, if you think the 80's were bad, you should have seen the 70's.